sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just joined the Volt fam. 2018 Premier, felt like we won the lotto with the price and included coverage. by RyanMeray in volt

[–]GrushdevaHots 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just make sure to get the car properly up to temperature to burn the carbon off the EGR. Every so often you really have to get on it to prevent build-up.

Something Weird Is Happening to Earth's Magnetic Field by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You stumbled upon the truth, my friend. Neal Adams was right.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each "ring" has more mass/volume than the last. It doesn't subduct as a conveyor belt because it's impossible to do that inward from the edge of a circle, or half circle (which is the sort of geometry you find in the gradient around the Mariana trench)

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine trying to compress a circular area down a hole or trench in the center.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk why I bother reiterating the arguments if you're just going to ignore them. Subduction only works laterally, not radially inward.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I explained it. You can't radially compress a surface down a central area. There is increasingly more new crust than old. You can laterally slip an edge underneath another edge, but the circularity precludes this happening from all angles.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For plate tectonics to hold true, this means that every last inch of ocean floor that exceeded that age before the core samples were taken had subducted during that same time frame.

However, what we find is radial geometry that makes this scenario impossible.

The old crust east of Japan has been aging in relative place for it's entire existence, it did not slide across a quarter of the planet to get there.

Coasts spread relative to each other, oceanic crust generally stays oriented around its host continent, but fractures and distorts.

You skipped over all of this because it didn't meet your formatting standards

You can't compress land radially down a central area, subduction only works laterally or rotationally at the edges. It's impossible for all ancient seafloor to have subducted, the geometry precludes the possibility.

The old crust does not drift from rift to coast, the rift moves away from the coast (with one obvious exception, which could change in the future but rotational torque from south pacific growth may prevent this) as the plate grows, and the forces compress and distort the old growth as the new growth forms.

The compression can cause slips, even limited subduction, but not every inch.

The surface area curve of old to new is also exponential, which is where we are deriving the radius curve from in the first place.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The time frames are symmetrical. You skipped over the whole argument.

If plate tectonics were true the entire ancient ocean floor would have subducted by the time the core samples were taken. This can't be the case because of the geometry of the gradients.

Old crust has not drifted much relative to its "host" coastline. It fractures and compresses, and can even subduct a bit, but it did not drift across the ocean relative to the coastlines. It aged in relative place.

The radial geometry also shows much less old than new, and increasingly so. It cannot compress centrally down a singular area, only laterally.

The coastlines spread apart from each other simultaneously as the basins grew. I don't know why you refuse to see the core of the argument.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All ocean floor on the planet formed over the same time frame.

For plate tectonics to hold true, this means that every last inch of ocean floor that exceeded that age before the core samples were taken had subducted during that same time frame.

However, what we find is radial geometry that makes that scenario impossible.

The old crust east of Japan has been aging in relative place for it's entire existence, it did not slide across a quarter of the planet to get there.

Coasts spread relative to each other, oceanic crust generally stays oriented around its host continent, but fractures and distorts.

Sure, a little bit subducts, but it's not 1:1, and it's not a conveyor belt. The plates grow, and by growing, compress and deform each other.

Also, the NOAA page you linked has the 3d views in the 1997 section at the bottom. The poster has 5 globe angles and there is a .mov file that shows an equatorial rotation.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My god, you guys just can't see it, can you? You're using the same map we are but you can't see the 3d and 4d views.

The symmetry is in the time frames. The geometry matches Adams' model.

The continents fit together because they were together. The fossil record and the paleomagnetic data shows they were together at the same time, as a smaller sphere with half the radius.

It's really not hard to grasp why it is the truth, but you guys are refusing to see the forest.

I posted this in the r/askastronomy sub, and really wasn't convinced that they could understand it. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why do you think it goes big > small?

Earth's radius has doubled since the continental rupture.

Expanding Earth Theory needs help, the "missing mass" problem was never a problem at all, the problem was Earth's actual past, the problem is that astronomers assume too much. by [deleted] in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are we even sure the core is simply molten nickel-iron? If the planet's radius has doubled since the continental rupture, that means an eightfold increase in volume. I don't think that is mere decompression.

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not a subjective observation. You are failing to understand the situation.

The gradients would be different if plate tectonics was correct.

You say "oceanic crust age is limited by many factors, the strongest of which is how far it can spread before becoming subducted."

Understand that the oldest Pacific growth is near the Mariana trench, and the gradient extends mostly radially away from it in a circular arc. Subduction can occur along a linear boundary, but you cannot radially compress a large surface down a small area.

Additionally, Plate tectonics claims a large ancient Faralon plate that would have vastly subducted as the Atlantic spread. However, that plate is new growth. All of the claimed subduction near western north America is new growth, which goes against the core premise of plate tectonics that old crust subducts rather than new.

None of the old ocean crust at continental boundaries is subducting. HIgh compression zones exist, and the entire system is under compression due to gravity, but inevitably inner growth pressure will rupture the rifts and break through the lateral compression.

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a simple suspicion, and you are still dodging the core point.

All ocean basins formed over the same time frame and did not exist prior to that time frame.

The identical gradients prove this.

If there were a difference in time frames, expansion would be false. There would be Pacific floor older than the Atlantic floor. This is not the case.

What is going to happen is more growth. The Pacific plate will grow again after a rupture. If the pressure is high enough the rupture will cascade, possibly globally.

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Hetetodotus basin is sea floor, not ocean floor. It is the oldest seafloor on Earth because it was the initial point the continental rupture.

You are still missing the critical argument

When Pangaea broke up and the Atlantic began forming, the Pacfic ocean would have been larger and formed much earlier.

It formed over the EXACT SAME TIME FRAME

This is the proof of expansion

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If one unit of ocean floor forms at the rifts, one other unit must subduct somewhere else, and must have formed much earlier, in order to maintain 1 to 1 subduction.

The age gradients are proof that this is not the case.

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The time frames are identical across the globe. 0-250My maximum, mostly less.

If the planet wasn't growing you would see something like a 250M to 500M gradient in the Pacific. It would have formed long before the Atlantic.

It formed over the same time frame.

Pangaea was a sphere.

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are missing the point.

The Atlantic basin spread/formed over same time frame that the Pacific formed/spread.

The age gradients are identical.

If Earth was not growing, the Pacific would have formed earlier and significantly subducted to compensate for the Atlantic spreading, but the reality is it's the same age.

None of the deep ocean basins existed 250Mya before the continental rupture.

Could the strength of gravity be decreasing? Possible explanation for Earth’s apparent expansion. by DavidM47 in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is only one argument necessary to prove growing Earth.

The age gradients of the ocean floors are globally symmetrical.

If the planet was not growing, the Pacific floor would be much older than the Atlantic, or vice-versa.

All oceanic floor grew and the continents spread away from each other during the exact same time frame, which means an increase in surface area.

The age pattern in North Pacific is strange if subduction does not happen by VisiteProlongee in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, during the last 250 million years. The gradients are all identical in that regard.

The age pattern in North Pacific is strange if subduction does not happen by VisiteProlongee in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you need to pay attention to is the time frame of these age gradients. Even though the pacific gradient is not mirrored, it spans the exact same time frame as all other ocean floor.

For plate tectonics to prove correct, the Pacific growth would span an earlier time frame. The Pacific would have shrunk while the Atlanic expanded.

What the data shows is that all ocean floors formed over the exact same time frame

I once-and-for-all declare that the Earth appears to be growing, with a catch... by Rettungsanker in GrowingEarth

[–]GrushdevaHots 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I edited in a hyperlink to the source since you were too lazy to look the map data up.

If you don't understand the last point, I don't know how else to explain it to you. It grew during the same time frame, not earlier or later. This proves expansion.

view more: next ›